No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...


But, without the weapons that they're probably not going to find because
they
don't exist, how badly could those programs have injured anybody?

Today not all

In 5 years time when the sanctions have been lifted
and Iraq can buy all the components it wants and
go back into production of WMD and the missiles
to carry them who knows ?

The same things that happened during the past five years could have happened in
the next five years, without either of our countries having had to have suffered
the loss of a single life. I'm not convinced that your pessimistic view of the
future is anywhere near accurate, and certainly not enough to satisfy me as
being worth the number of dead and maimed we have suffered up to now and
apparently will continue to suffer.

Is that going
to be the next empty rationale for assaulting a despicable government?


It doesnt sound that empty to me, would you prefer to wait
until they were firing test missiles like the DPRK ?

Yes, I would, because the thing may blow up on the pad, or it may suffer one of
countless setbacks that might prevent it from ever leaving the ground. IAC, if
that's the criteria, our war with them should have started already, but I notice
that it hasn't, for some strange reason.

Yes, I still think it's an empty rationale. We can't make war with every
country we don't like just because we are fearful of their intentions. If we
have to do that, we're pretty much fully engaged and committed in Afghanistan
and Iraq at the moment, so how about you guys taking the lead in North Korea and
China.....I'm sure we can find a division or two of troops to send over to give
your guys a hand and lend you some moral support.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote:

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message

In 5 years time when the sanctions have been lifted
and Iraq can buy all the components it wants and
go back into production of WMD and the missiles
to carry them who knows ?

The same things that happened during the past five years could have happened in
the next five years, without either of our countries having had to have suffered
the loss of a single life. I'm not convinced that your pessimistic view of the
future is anywhere near accurate, and certainly not enough to satisfy me as
being worth the number of dead and maimed we have suffered up to now and
apparently will continue to suffer.

I think the sanctions were about to be broken. Russia, France, Germany and
a significant part of US opinion was starting to regard them as misdirected
against innocent Iraqis. The regime was largely unhampered by them, and in
fact, was enriching itself on the limited commondities.

It wasn't until US intentions to go to war became clear that suddenly, sanctions
were good and should "be given time" to work. Too many interests in too many
countries in letting Saddam out from under the UN, for them to have lasted.

It doesnt sound that empty to me, would you prefer to wait
until they were firing test missiles like the DPRK ?

Yes, I would, because the thing may blow up on the pad, or it may suffer one of
countless setbacks that might prevent it from ever leaving the ground. IAC, if
that's the criteria, our war with them should have started already, but I notice
that it hasn't, for some strange reason.

I wonder if any of the Bush critics *really* would support a war, or even more
agressive actions against NK? It's a *much* more formidable country militarily
than Iraq probably ever was. I don't believe for a minute that Dean or Kennedy
or any of the Democratic (or Republican) critics of the war would even think of
seriously threatening NK with force. Yet we keep hearing them tell us how much
more dangerous NK is and our efforts should be put there.

Yes, I still think it's an empty rationale. We can't make war with every
country we don't like just because we are fearful of their intentions. If we

That's absolutely true. I've come to the belief that we should simply wait
until the "fearful intentions" are actually demonstrated, before action is taken.

Unfortunately, a lot of Americans (most likely civilians) will die by waiting, but
the intent will be clear, and whether anyone else likes our reaction or not won't
matter a whit to the American people.

have to do that, we're pretty much fully engaged and committed in Afghanistan
and Iraq at the moment, so how about you guys taking the lead in North Korea and
China.....I'm sure we can find a division or two of troops to send over to give
your guys a hand and lend you some moral support.

So are you actually in support of military operations against this more dangerous
to US than Iraq, North Korea? I'd be very surprised to see you actually supporting
a war against NK, especially if the current casualty rate in Iraq is considered too
high. Can you imagine the casualty rates per week against NK?


SMH